Any chance of the G6 getting a DOHC V-6?

[The O.C.]

Kinda sad isn't it.  A more efficient design is pushed to the side because a greater number of the competition uses an older more inefficient design.

[post="73221"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You may think of the pushrod motor as a more "efficient" design....

....but there's alot of people (consumers) out there that much prefer the way the "inefficient" (multi valves and overhead cams) design feels, sounds, and revs.

[vt_hokie]

If the G6 GTP's 3.9 liter could get over 30 mpg highway, like the new DOHC designs of equivalent hp from Toyota or Honda, then I'd have no problem with it.

[stickmax]

Wasn't there a 3 Valve version of the 3.9L in the works that made over 270 HP?

[ToniCipriani]

Wasn't there a 3 Valve version of the 3.9L in the works that made over 270 HP?

[post="73398"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

This is what I'm wondering too. I heard the 3500 will get the same treatment as well.

[MyerShift]

Well, since GM is so decided upon OHV engines, it's only a matter of time before GM gives us something like a 3.9 litre 24V VVT OHV V6 with direct fuel injection :P . Power, um, let's estimate somewhere around 300 hp, eh?

[regfootball]

I had the opportunity to bounce a few emails with Lutz a few months back....and we discussed the G6 and its pushrod V6s. 

He admitted that from day one, he wanted the HF 3.6L in the G6 but "production constraints" kept them from offering it in the vehicle (also what he said about the base engine in the Lucerne.)

Based upon his comments, I wouldn't bet against the engine finding its way in the G6 sometime in the near future....but I bet it wouldn't be before late '07 or '08.

To me....I HATE the "production contraints" arguement.  When you have a solid product like the HF engines that would so obviously improve your vehicles, you need to FIND a way to increase production to meet demand.  You don't find other manufacturers struggling with "production contraints" for its class-leading engine/powertrain combos.

[post="66149"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

only 'bottom feeder' organizations like GM have to use excuses like "Production constraints". Either its the bean counters, accountants, union, or all of them. Edited January 21, 2006 by regfootball

[regfootball]

No take a look at which engine is actually larger.  The high tech OHC engines are not high tech in that they take up more room, weigh more, cost more, and have more moving parts than a OHV motor.  Given the same physical space to fit a motor for the most power AND fuel savings OHV wins every time.

[post="73003"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

except when it runs out of breath at 4500 rpm

[91z4me]

except when it runs out of breath at 4500 rpm

[post="77957"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah that LS7 runs out of breath so low doesn't it? :rolleyes:

[regfootball]

You may think of the pushrod motor as a more "efficient" design....

....but there's alot of people (consumers) out there that much prefer the way the "inefficient" (multi valves and overhead cams) design feels, sounds, and revs.

[post="73298"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

in fact, the opposite was true. part of the reason OHC became popular and universal (except for the general of course) was the 4 valve head with central spark plug, which was promoted as giving more efficient and productive combustion chamber. 4 valves allowed better breathing and more power. so i hardly think overhead cam is inefficient, in fact, the opposite is true and the market must see things that way if much of it feels pushrods are old 'inefficent' tech.

[regfootball]

Yeah that LS7 runs out of breath so low doesn't it?  :rolleyes:

[post="78360"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

at 70 grand it better not. but i hardly think its a volume v6 for a mid priced segment.

[91z4me]

at 70 grand it better not.  but i hardly think its a volume v6 for a mid priced segment.

[post="78376"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Lets use the 3.8 VVT vs the 3.6 VVT. One is OHV the other OHC.

The 3.6 has 240 hp at 6000 RPMs and 240 ft lbs of torque at 2000 RPMs in the Lacrosse, FWD with a 4 speed auto. The torque curve is very flat decreasing slightly as the RPMs rise and the hp curve is very linear. The compression ratio is 10.2:1.
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/produ...Y7_LaCrosse.pdf

The 3.9 makes 242 hp at 6000 RPMs and 242 ft lbs of torque at 4800 RPMs. The torque curve peaks around 2500 RPMs and then dips around 3300 and then rises back to the peak. The torque curve is not quite as linear but is still fairly flat. The compression ratio is 9.8:1.
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/produ..._LZ9_Impala.pdf

So lets see which one is more advanced. The 3.9 is lighter, even with an iron block. It is dimensionally smaller and therefore easier to package. It is much cheaper and delivers nearly identical peak numbers while delivering BETTER fuel economy!

The best engineering solution is the one that is the simplist, cheapest, easiest to assemble. Which is the better engineering solution?

[Robert Hall]

Lets use the 3.8 VVT vs the 3.6 VVT.  One is OHV the other OHC. 

The 3.6 has 240 hp at 6000 RPMs and 240 ft lbs of torque at 2000 RPMs in the Lacrosse, FWD with a 4 speed auto. The torque curve is very flat decreasing slightly as the RPMs rise and the hp curve is very linear.  The compression ratio is 10.2:1.
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/produ...Y7_LaCrosse.pdf

The 3.9 makes 242 hp at 6000 RPMs and 242 ft lbs of torque at 4800 RPMs.  The torque curve peaks around 2500 RPMs and then dips around 3300 and then rises back to the peak.  The torque curve is not quite as linear but is still fairly flat. The compression ratio is 9.8:1.
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/produ..._LZ9_Impala.pdf

So lets see which one is more advanced.  The 3.9 is lighter, even with an iron block.  It is dimensionally smaller and therefore easier to package.  It is much cheaper and delivers nearly identical peak numbers while delivering BETTER fuel economy!

The best engineering solution is the one that is the simplist, cheapest, easiest to assemble.  Which is the better engineering solution?

[post="78382"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Whatever..all the competition is using OHC V6s in their midsizes....GM is still using old school engines and 4spd automatics... the reality is that the market percieves them as outdated and uncompetitive... (the market beyond Avis). Edited January 22, 2006 by moltar

[pow]

Which is the better engineering solution?

[post="78382"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Which would Cadillac put in their $50K sedan?

[Robert Hall]

Which would Cadillac put in their $50K sedan?

[post="78401"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That's obvious... in the luxury market, you have to have a multi-valve OHC solution to be class-competitive.

[haypops]

A number of years ago I heard a very interesting intyerview on the radio. At the time the 3.8 redo and the Northstar were both relatively "young". The question of the GM engineer in charge of the 3.8 program was "why did your engine come out so much better than the Northstar". It was actually a fair question at that time. The head engineer could not admit to the validity of the question, but intead went on to describe the changes and benefits they had made to the engine. Neither the interviewer, nor the engineer once claimed OHC was better or worse.

[Drew Dowdell]

at 70 grand it better not.  but i hardly think its a volume v6 for a mid priced segment.

[post="78376"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Sorry, he ment to say the 5.3 in the mid priced Impala SS

[Drew Dowdell]

Whatever..all the competition is using OHC V6s in their midsizes....GM is still using old  school engines and 4spd automatics...  the reality is that the market percieves them as outdated and uncompetitive... (the market beyond Avis).

[post="78396"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The market is wrong. The market is reacting to what Honda & Driver and Toyota Trend are spoon feeding them.

[Drew Dowdell]

Which would Cadillac put in their $50K sedan?

[post="78401"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

When you buy a Cadillac, you pay for the "extras". When you buy a Cadillac, your first concern is not fuel mileage.

[Robert Hall]

The market is wrong. The market is reacting to what Honda & Driver and Toyota Trend are spoon feeding them.

[post="78413"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Riiiiight....believe what you want to believe. The reality is car buyers are happy what Toyota, Nissan, and Honda are providing... GM isn't going to woo back buyers with the same old, same old...

[pow]

When you buy a Cadillac, you pay for the "extras". When you buy a Cadillac, your first concern is not fuel mileage.

[post="78415"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Buyers want "extras", regardless of price. Both the DOHC 3.6 (LaCrosse CXL) and OHV 3.9 (Impala LTZ) get 19/27 MPG.

[pow]

Sorry, he ment to say the 5.3 in the mid priced Impala SS

[post="78411"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The 5.3 is hardly an engine targeted for the masses; you can't expect all buyers to go for the V8, regardless of how decent the EPA figures are.

[Cory Wolfe]

Some people make me think if they have ever heard of this saying: "The consumer is always right". Doesn't seem like it... If they went DOHC V6s, give 'em to them. How do you expect to win back buyers by not offering what they want? Impossible, using that logic.

[91z4me]

Whatever..all the competition is using OHC V6s in their midsizes....GM is still using old  school engines and 4spd automatics...  the reality is that the market percieves them as outdated and uncompetitive... (the market beyond Avis).

[post="78396"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That doesn't mean squat so far as what is the better engineering decision. The OHV engines ARE competitive. Just because only 1 manufacturer is using it and the market percieves it RIGHT NOW as being less than ideal doesn't change the logic that the OHV 3.9 is a better engine than the 3.6 OHC. If GM wanted to they could make a 4.4 of 4.5 OHV V6 that would wipe the floor with the 3.6 HF because it would take less space to get more displacement. GM could add DOD, VVT, DI, an aluminum block, and Variable intake manifold for the same price it costs to make the 3.6 HF. IF such an engine were made it would get better fuel mileage, make more power, and be a better engine across the board but because it isn't what everyone else makes that makes it inferior? That is hardly a reason for an engine to be inferior.

[ponchoman49]

I almost purchased a Pontiac G6, but opted to get a used car instead.  I would like to see Pontiac ditch the old pushrod engine in favor of the newer 250 hp DOHC VVT 3.6 liter V-6 that they're giving the Saturn Aura.  Naturally, it should be mated to either a 6 speed manual or a 6 speed "sport shift" automatic transmission! :)  Why don't I just get an Aura then?  Well, I don't want the big goofy smiley face grin that they gave the Aura's nose, or the awkward looking headlight assemblies that are twice as big as they should be.  I think the G6 is a much nicer looking car.  But both the 201 hp 3.5 liter and 240 hp 3.9 liter OHV engines are getting to be outclassed by the competition.  Is there any chance of the G6 getting new engines and transmissions? 

As for what I bought instead of a new G6, I went out and replaced my 1997 Saturn SL2 with a used 2000 SL2!  I wish GM would put dent resistant body panels on more of its cars, but sadly, instead they're even getting rid of them on Saturns.  Door and fender dings suck, and they're inevitable sooner or later with a steel clad car. :(

[post="65881"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well get used to it. 98% of the crap coming out for 06 and 07 have steel panals and not even a door protection molding. BMW's, Caddys, Toyotas, new Nissans and even Lincoln's have plain, naked steel dorrs with no protection whatsoever. The paintless dent removing bodyshops are going to get rich on these car companies cost cutting! :rolleyes:

[ToniCipriani]

I almost purchased a Pontiac G6, but opted to get a used car instead.  I would like to see Pontiac ditch the old pushrod engine in favor of the newer 250 hp DOHC VVT 3.6 liter V-6 that they're giving the Saturn Aura.  Naturally, it should be mated to either a 6 speed manual or a 6 speed "sport shift" automatic transmission! :)  Why don't I just get an Aura then?  Well, I don't want the big goofy smiley face grin that they gave the Aura's nose, or the awkward looking headlight assemblies that are twice as big as they should be.  I think the G6 is a much nicer looking car.  But both the 201 hp 3.5 liter and 240 hp 3.9 liter OHV engines are getting to be outclassed by the competition.  Is there any chance of the G6 getting new engines and transmissions? 

As for what I bought instead of a new G6, I went out and replaced my 1997 Saturn SL2 with a used 2000 SL2!  I wish GM would put dent resistant body panels on more of its cars, but sadly, instead they're even getting rid of them on Saturns.  Door and fender dings suck, and they're inevitable sooner or later with a steel clad car. :(

[post="65881"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Forgot to mention, the Aura's NOT getting the 3.6L, from what I heard. It's getting the same engine as the G6.

But honestly, have you driven it? Just by calling it "old pushrod" and dismissing the engine doesn't sound fair. I have one in my baby and I absolutely love the engine. Torquey and powerful. Edited January 23, 2006 by ToniCipriani

[ponchoman49]

Buyers want "extras", regardless of price. Both the DOHC 3.6 (LaCrosse CXL) and OHV 3.9 (Impala LTZ) get 19/27 MPG.

[post="78436"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Which in my book makes the 3900 seem inferior. The LaCrosse and Impala are W-body cars with similar weight and both use the same 4T65 tranny. The LaCrosse uses steeper 3.69:1 gears and makes but 2 less hp than the 3900 Impala which has lazier 3.29:1 gears, needs extra displacement and VVT to get at 242 hp output and sounds so much less refined than the 3.6 DOHC. I'm not sure which car would win a race but I have seen the LaCrosse anywhere from 6.7 seconds to 8.0 seconds by the auto rags and Chevy puts the 3900 Impala at 7.8 seconds which ironically is what I got with a base rental LS Impala with the 3500 and 2.86:1 gears. I would expect both engines to do around 7.0 seconds to 60 in my experiences so peformance would be similar. The sweet refined sound of the 3.6 DOHC would put that engine in my favor, albeit with a bit more torque. From my experience with the Impala with the 3500 I say that GM still has a way to go to make this engine sound refined. As far as the G6 goes, if GM installed the 3.6 in that with 3.29:1 gears instead of the 3.69:1 geared 3900 it would get a lot better than the horrible 26 highway mpg rating and be just as quick in 250 hp guise.

[91z4me]

Which in my book makes the 3900 seem inferior. The LaCrosse and Impala are W-body cars with similar weight and both use the same 4T65 tranny. The LaCrosse uses steeper 3.69:1 gears and makes but 2 less hp than the 3900 Impala which has lazier 3.29:1 gears, needs extra displacement and VVT to get at 242 hp output and sounds so much less refined than the 3.6 DOHC.

[post="78846"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

FYI the 3.6 has VVT just like the 3.9 does only it vaires the intake and exhaust cam individually whereas the 3.9 has static timing between the intake and exhaust valves. So by your argument the 3.6 needs more help than the 3.9. And despite having more displacement it is a smaller engine.

[vt_hokie]

Well get used to it. 98% of the crap coming out for 06 and 07 have steel panals and not even a door protection molding. BMW's, Caddys, Toyotas, new Nissans and even Lincoln's have plain, naked steel dorrs with no protection whatsoever. The paintless dent removing bodyshops are going to get rich on these car companies cost cutting! :rolleyes:

[post="78809"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

This is exactly why I probably won't be buying a G6 or any new car for that matter. I would be pretty excited about the Saturn Aura, despite the ugly headlights, if they gave it the dent resistant polymer body panels. But sadly, GM decided to do away with that feature to save money and sell minimally modified Opels as Saturns. So, until some other automaker offers a car that can withstand normal parking lot abuse without looking like crap after a couple of years, I'm going to stick with cheap used cars, as much as I'd like to have a new vehicle. :( Edited January 24, 2006 by vt_hokie

[vt_hokie]

But honestly, have you driven it? Just by calling it "old pushrod" and dismissing the engine doesn't sound fair. I have one in my baby and I absolutely love the engine. Torquey and powerful.

Yes, I rented a 3.5 liter 2006 Pontiac G6. I was the first person to rent it, and I drove it off the Avis lot with like 6 miles on the odometer! I was impressed with the car. I hadn't even really been considering the G6 until I rented that one. I had been leaning toward buying a Mazda 3s at the time, but when a small car like the Mazda 3 can only get 30 mpg highway out of a 160 hp 2.3 liter engine, and a midsize G6 can get better mileage with a 3.5 liter V-6, well, it makes it hard to justify getting an "economy" car!

Still, 201 hp out of 3.5 liters and ~8 seconds 0 - 60 are very mediocre numbers for what GM advertises as "one of the best cars in the world". With competition like the 240 hp Honda Accord, with its reputation for reliability and refinement, GM needs to do better in order to regain market share. And as I said before, check out the specs on that new Toyota Avalon! 268 hp, 248 lb-ft peak torque, 0 - 60 in under 7 seconds, and still rated at 31 mpg highway!

[CSpec]

Forgot to mention, the Aura's NOT getting the 3.6L, from what I heard. It's getting the same engine as the G6.

But honestly, have you driven it? Just by calling it "old pushrod" and dismissing the engine doesn't sound fair. I have one in my baby and I absolutely love the engine. Torquey and powerful.

[post="78831"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It's getting the 2.4L Ecotec, 3500 from the Impala, and the 3.6.

[91z4me]

Yes, I rented a 3.5 liter 2006 Pontiac G6.  I was the first person to rent it, and I drove it off the Avis lot with like 6 miles on the odometer!  I was impressed with the car.  I hadn't even really been considering the G6 until I rented that one.  I had been leaning toward buying a Mazda 3s at the time, but when a small car like the Mazda 3 can only get 30 mpg highway out of a 160 hp 2.3 liter engine, and a midsize G6 can get better mileage with a 3.5 liter V-6, well, it makes it hard to justify getting an "economy" car! 

Still, 201 hp out of 3.5 liters and ~8 seconds 0 - 60 are very mediocre numbers for what GM advertises as "one of the best cars in the world".  With competition like the 240 hp Honda Accord, with its reputation for reliability and refinement, GM needs to do better in order to regain market share.  And as I said before, check out the specs on that new Toyota Avalon! 268 hp, 248 lb-ft peak torque, 0 - 60 in under 7 seconds, and still rated at 31 mpg highway!

[post="79123"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You do know about the 3.9 GTP G6 right? 242 hp 6 speed stick optional. That is more Accord territory, and it will likely get better gas mileage.

[haypops]

Still, 201 hp out of 3.5 liters and ~8 seconds 0 - 60 are very mediocre numbers for what GM advertises as "one of the best cars in the world".  With competition like the 240 hp Honda Accord, with its reputation for reliability and refinement, GM needs to do better in order to regain market share.  And as I said before, check out the specs on that new Toyota Avalon! 268 hp, 248 lb-ft peak torque, 0 - 60 in under 7 seconds, and still rated at 31 mpg highway!

[post="79123"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

This is just not a fair comparison. You say in another post that one engine is better than another because it has less displacement than an equally powerful engine - a totally artifical measure, then compare a G6 to a Honda and Toyota that are priced the same as a Cadillac CTS. Money is a real metric, displacement is not.

In a slighlty realted topic there is G6 value leader and it is well equiped and I saw one advertised for $12999. That seems a worthy comptetor for even the Koreans.

[ToniCipriani]

The Avalon's competitor is the Impala. That comparison would be fair if you match it with an Impala SS. The G6 should be compared to Altimas, Mazda 6s and Accords. You can't cross price ranges to compare.

[The O.C.]

Yeah that LS7 runs out of breath so low doesn't it?  :rolleyes:

[post="78360"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Hey he's got a point.....

As much as I LOVE the LS2 in my C6, it's true that it doesn't zing to the redline like the DOHC/Multi-Valve V8s in our X5 and S500.....

It feels pretty much dead and buried by 5,000rpms.

I love the LS2 for many other reasons.....awesome power, sound, feel, decent mpg....but even I can admit that it still runs out of breath (relatively-speaking of course) as you climb higher into the rev range. The European V8s zing right to the redline smoothly and quickly....and there IS a certain exciting feel about them when they do this.

[The O.C.]

That's obvious... in the luxury market, you have to have a multi-valve OHC solution to be class-competitive.

[post="78403"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well, the same could be said in the midsize sedan segment.....or the compact car segment (where GM IS using multi-valve/multi-cam solutions....)

[ToniCipriani]

In a slighlty realted topic there is G6 value leader and it is well equiped and I saw one advertised for $12999.  That seems a worthy comptetor for even the Koreans.

[post="79302"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Serious? That's like $4000 off MSRP!

[The O.C.]

The market is wrong. The market is reacting to what Honda & Driver and Toyota Trend are spoon feeding them.

[post="78413"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

LMFAO, ROTFL......

:lol:

You just keep thinking that.....

That's the exact same close-minded thinking that way too many GM people have utilized to justify their lackluster product decisions over way too many decades.

[91z4me]

Hey he's got a point.....

As much as I LOVE the LS2 in my C6, it's true that it doesn't zing to the redline like the DOHC/Multi-Valve V8s in our X5 and S500.....

It feels pretty much dead and buried by 5,000rpms. 

I love the LS2 for many other reasons.....awesome power, sound, feel, decent mpg....but even I can admit that it still runs out of breath (relatively-speaking of course) as you climb higher into the rev range.  The European V8s zing right to the redline smoothly and quickly....and there IS a certain exciting feel about them when they do this.

[post="79374"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

O.C. Do you think the reason that the LS2 feels dead above 5K has to do with the way the power is delivered? What I mean is if an engine is rev happy and has a higher redline then it will feel more powerful than it really is, like an S2000?


BTW I have not driven or ridden in a performance V8 car made after 1991 so I have no personal experience in the Gen II, III, or IV performance engine game. I have driven numerous GM Truck V8s recently but no car apps. Just wanted to make that clear.

[ToniCipriani]

O.C. Do you think the reason that the LS2 feels dead above 5K has to do with the way the power is delivered?  What I mean is if an engine is rev happy and has a higher redline then it will sound more powerful than it really is, like an S2000? 

[post="79403"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Have to correct you there :P

I hate it when I hear my engine (or any engine as a matter of fact) revs past 3000. Noise is just bad. Edited January 24, 2006 by ToniCipriani

[CaddyXLR-V]

Hey he's got a point.....

As much as I LOVE the LS2 in my C6, it's true that it doesn't zing to the redline like the DOHC/Multi-Valve V8s in our X5 and S500.....

It feels pretty much dead and buried by 5,000rpms. 

I love the LS2 for many other reasons.....awesome power, sound, feel, decent mpg....but even I can admit that it still runs out of breath (relatively-speaking of course) as you climb higher into the rev range.  The European V8s zing right to the redline smoothly and quickly....and there IS a certain exciting feel about them when they do this.

[post="79374"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Would only having 2 valves per cylinder be the cause of that? 3 valve heads might solve that. You could also just go switch to a high lift cam, that will help the engine keep breathing.
And I bet those DOHC engines wouldnt even fit under the low hood of the Vette.

[91z4me]

Would only having 2 valves per cylinder be the cause of that? 3 valve heads might solve that. You could also just go switch to a high lift cam, that will help the engine keep breathing.
And I bet those DOHC engines wouldnt even fit under the low hood of the Vette.

[post="79410"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The N* fits under the XLR's hood and the 4.4 SC N* fits under the XLR-Vs you should know that judging from your name.

[haypops]

Serious? That's like $4000 off MSRP!

[post="79379"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yes, that is what i saw. Usually i see these listed in the low $14000 range. I assume it included the $500 auto show discount which is location specific and very time limited. On theother hand GM has offered to roundup my GM card rebate from $50 to $2000.

[pow]

The Avalon's competitor is the Impala. That comparison would be fair if you match it with an Impala SS.

The G6 should be compared to Altimas, Mazda 6s and Accords.

You can't cross price ranges to compare.

[post="79312"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The Camry will get the Avalon's engine.

[The O.C.]

O.C. Do you think the reason that the LS2 feels dead above 5K has to do with the way the power is delivered?  What I mean is if an engine is rev happy and has a higher redline then it will feel more powerful than it really is, like an S2000? 
BTW I have not driven or ridden in a performance V8 car made after 1991 so I have no personal experience in the Gen II, III, or IV performance engine game.  I have driven numerous GM Truck V8s recently but no car apps.  Just wanted to make that clear.

[post="79403"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well, I'm certainly no S2000 fan.....but I can tell you the shriek and thrust in the back when you rev past the 6,500rpm mark is thrilling.......

GM's V8 engines are AWESOME......pushrods or not. They are much-better executed than GM's pushrod V6 engines in my opinion. However, facts are facts and it's tough to make a pushrod engine rev as freely as a comparable multi-valve and mulit-cam engine.

That's why my C6 doesn't rev as freely to redline as the German V8s. However, it is thrilling in many other ways and I certainly appreciate it for that. Would I LOVE to have a BMW 400hp (previous generation) M5 engine, or the new Valvetronic 4.8L V8 in my C6? Well that's another thought-provoking question that I'd rather not have to contemplate.....

[vt_hokie]

The Avalon's competitor is the Impala. That comparison would be fair if you match it with an Impala SS.

The G6 should be compared to Altimas, Mazda 6s and Accords.

Okay then, the Accord offers a 244 hp 3.0 liter VVT V-6 rated at 29 mpg highway with the 5 speed automatic. In order to get up to that hp level on the G6, you've got to upgrade to the GTP model, and that's only rated at 26 mpg highway and comes with a 4 speed automatic.

It's no wonder GM keeps losing market share. They still insist on coming out with cars that are almost up to par, but never quite there. Why does GM still use a 4 speed auto mated to the old pushrod engine on a car that's coming in as an underdog attempting to steal some sales back from the aforementioned competition? Edited January 25, 2006 by vt_hokie

[Cory Wolfe]

Okay then, the Accord offers a 244 hp 3.0 liter VVT V-6 rated at 29 mpg highway with the 5 speed automatic.  In order to get up to that hp level on the G6, you've got to upgrade to the GTP model, and that's only rated at 26 mpg highway and comes with a 4 speed automatic.

Well... that Accord kind of competes with the GTP version of the G6. That and it also comes with a 6spd manual. I, personally, would never consider an automatic regardless of how many gears it has. If you only want an automatic, I see your point, but atleast that 4spd auto has a reputation for reliability, unlike Honda's auto. As far as fuel mileage goes... yeah, it's mediocre. GM f**ked up there.

It's no wonder GM keeps losing market share.  They still insist on coming out with cars that are almost up to par, but never quite there.  Why does GM still use a 4 speed auto mated to the old pushrod engine on a car that's coming in as an underdog attempting to steal some sales back from the aforementioned competition?

[post="79728"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Sadly, I agree.

[pow]

OK, OK, I think I've got it, why pushrod V-8s cut it, but pushrod V-6s don't. With a V-8, you're impressed by the power and sound it makes, diverting your attention away from breathability concerns. With a pushrod V-6, however, nothing about it stands out. There.

[regfootball]

Okay then, the Accord offers a 244 hp 3.0 liter VVT V-6 rated at 29 mpg highway with the 5 speed automatic.  In order to get up to that hp level on the G6, you've got to upgrade to the GTP model, and that's only rated at 26 mpg highway and comes with a 4 speed automatic.

It's no wonder GM keeps losing market share.  They still insist on coming out with cars that are almost up to par, but never quite there.  Why does GM still use a 4 speed auto mated to the old pushrod engine on a car that's coming in as an underdog attempting to steal some sales back from the aforementioned competition?

[post="79728"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

because GM don't know their head from their ass most of the time

[The O.C.]

OK, OK, I think I've got it, why pushrod V-8s cut it, but pushrod V-6s don't. With a V-8, you're impressed by the power and sound it makes, diverting your attention away from breathability concerns. With a pushrod V-6, however, nothing about it stands out. There.

[post="79783"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well kinda.....but not really.......

GM's pushrod V8s don't necessarily rev like import engines......but for the MOST part, are just about as smooth (in their narrower powerband), cultured, and refined. That being said....a BMW Valvetronic V8 or M-Benz V8 is even silkier.

GM's V6s, however, are no where near as smooth, cultured, or refined as the competitive V6 multi-cam/valve engines. While GM has gotten idle noise mastered quite well, any toe into the gas brings larger noise levels in their pushrod V6s as well.

IMHO

[The O.C.]

Would only having 2 valves per cylinder be the cause of that? 3 valve heads might solve that. You could also just go switch to a high lift cam, that will help the engine keep breathing.
And I bet those DOHC engines wouldnt even fit under the low hood of the Vette.

[post="79410"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The ZR-1s engine did........